I don't think so, actually. I got back in game and checked on a level 63, the objectives look the same in the 50-70 bracket from what I can see. Missions: Heroic is still available, as are the [Planet]: Heroic Missions objectives. Again, there isn't an objective for the weekly, so you should have gotten 10k for the first heroic, then 5k for each after that, and then the enemies defeated and bonus mission objectives would add up to just over 15k. So that totals just over 40k, and then you'd have lower XP to CQP conversions for a lower level character I'm pretty sure, so I don't see that getting you more than maybe 3-4k ish. So I wouldn't expect it to hit over 50k if all was working properly unless you did another bigger objective. You mentioned a companion objective. There's 2 in the 50-70 bracket. Influencer is 16k, Benefactor is less than 2k. If you got benefactor (for giving a single gift) that also wouldn't push you over 50k and I'd assume everything's working properly. If you got Influencer (going up an influence level), then something may have gone wrong, but I'm not sure what that would have been. The objectives all look correct.

Ah, good call. I was on a level 80, let me see if I have a character in the 51-70 bracket. I could see this being an issue where they just forgot to make Missions: Heroic available for 51-70. Pretty sure it was 1-50 only before.

I'll reserve judgment in case they have more info, but I'm guessing they're mistaken. I just tested it myself, ran Enemies of the Republic and Republic's Most Wanted. Coruscant: Heroic Missions - 5000 Coruscant: Defeat Enemies - 4125 Missions: Heroic x2 - 10000 Missions: Bonus - 2750 Total from the objectives is 21875, 650x3 from each mission completion adds up to an extra 1950, totaling out to 23,825. My total in the Conquest screen was 24,265. So I got 440 from enemy kills. It doesn't seem to me like the 5k infinitely repeatable is bugged. I saw it pop both times and it's still in my chat log.

Yeah. This is kind of an important point that people keep overlooking when discussing content and how "popular" it is. Most group content in the game is rewarding in other areas, solo content just isn't. Its entire reward structure depends on Conquest in a way that most other content in the game doesn't. This was done by design when 7.0 launched, accompanied by several significant nerfs to solo content in Conquest. It was my biggest issue with the rep objective nerf. They've slowly made solo content more reliant on Conquest while also making it less viable for Conquest. That's not gonna feel good for players that primarily play solo and don't want to engage with the group activities. You're not gonna force them into other game modes they don't want to play, you're gonna push them out of the game entirely. The heroic weeklies don't have Conquest objectives so that 10k wasn't for the weekly. I'd expect it to be around 45k for all of the heroics on Coruscant. Point wise you'd get 25k from the heroics themselves, ~12.5k from the defeat enemies objectives, probably a ~3k bonus mission ding for Face Merchants or Enemies of the Republic, and then odds and ends from XP to CQP conversions. If you're saying you got the Companion Influencer objective as well (which is 16k) and weren't over 50k in the end, then something went wrong.

Ossus is actually available. I don't know if maybe it just always was, or if they left it out of the patch notes, but I have a character that's fresh level 80 and hasn't completed anything past the class story and they have access to Ossus dailies. I also have a level 70 that's just past Rishi and they also have access to Ossus (along with Onderon, Runuk, and Kessan's Landing, no Manaan though, the level 80 did have access to Manaan). Ziost makes sense because of story stuff, Rishi I would guess just got forgotten. It doesn't have a Conquest objective and its weekly was added long after the fact, so I'm guessing they just forgot it existed.

It's really weird to take people complaining about a nerf as them hating the entire system in question. Conquest is one of the main driving factors for me when playing the game. The content I like to play doesn't have great rewards, so Conquest basically is the reward for that content, and since the objectives for that content were nerfed into the ground several years ago, the rep objective was what helped make up the difference. It allows me to do what I want with the time that I have, and then use the rep objective to finish off. That's no longer possible, so I'll get through what I have time for, realize I'm still 30-40k short, and now I have to go do something else to make up the rest when I wanted to either be done entirely or switch to another character. To imply that means I dislike the entire system is completely disingenuous (or you've given zero thought to why people might have an issue with it). You're not the first person I've seen make that argument and it's incredibly silly in my opinion. If you don't have a problem with it, that's totally fine, but that doesn't mean that other people can't have a legitimate issue with it without hating the entire system. Also good to point out, because I feel like the way you word it here is intentionally misleading, simply clicking a token is the end of the process for the rep advancement, it's not the whole process. There's very few rep lines in the game that you can just get a rep token from "nothing", and longtime players probably have those lines at max rep (which means you get the objective from them, if you weren't aware, you have to actually use the token and you can't use rep tokens for lines you have maxed out). Outside of the limited exceptions, you did content at some point in time to get that rep token. You can argue whether or not that content is "enough" for the points, but I feel like there's a lot of objectives right now that you could make that argument for, especially with how rewarding the content is otherwise. The fact is it's not simply logging in and clicking a button. If you're doing that, it's more than likely that you did content at some point in time to get the token to click on.

Not sure if this is affecting any other companions that got a Date Night mission, but if Lana is wearing covert energy gloves or doesn't have any gloves equipped, she reverts to having her default gloves equipped when she shows up on Odessen. This shows both outside the cutscene when she's displayed as an NPC and then also in the cutscene itself. This isn't an issue with her elsewhere as far as I'm aware, I've had her placed in my Stronghold and she's never showed with her default gloves there, or in other cutscenes. Just here. It also seems like when you first zone in, it removes the dye on her chestpiece and puts her saber back to default as well. I was able to summon her and dismiss her to make those appear correctly again, but the gloves weren't fixed by this. Using gloves other than covert energy also display fine, but any style of covert energy glove gets replaced by her defaults. Some screenshots to demonstrate what I'm talking about: EDIT: Having now done the scene, it seems like she has some issues with her hands in this scene if you force gloves that show them (such as Bastila's gloves shown in my screenshots there). It looks like her skin is much darker, almost as if she's wearing brown gloves. I'll attach an additional screenshot to show that, would be nice to have these bugs fixed. Kinda disappointing to have to tinker with her outfit just to get this scene to look right.

If the only thing you care about is the name, I'm pretty sure you can rename your legacy. I don't think it's free, but it shouldn't be crazy expensive either. Would save you from losing any progress you've made on any of the various legacy-related things (achievements, unlocks, reputations, etc).

Just a quick stat here. A player wanting to transfer a character and their stronghold(s) over to Shae Vizla would have to transfer at least 2 characters to reactivate with credits any of the following strongholds: Tatooine (2.5m), Yavin 4 (2.5m), Manaan (2.5m), Rishi (3m), and Alderaan (4m). If you have all of these strongholds and want to reactivate all of them with credits, you'd need 14.5m credits, or over 7 characters transferred with 2m credits each. That's just Strongholds alone. It should have been stated clearly, from the start, that this server was a fresh start server first and foremost. Dangling the carrot that this was an APAC server for APAC players and then doing this is genuinely awful, but I suppose that's why it was announced at the end of business on a Friday.

If that's what you took away from my post, you didn't even read it.

I'm not? I'm sorry, but bringing trades and COD into this shows, once again, you don't understand the difference between the numbers you're talking about here. The buyout price in both systems is the same number. It's what the seller receives + the tax. That's true in both systems. So if your argument here is that you can't get the tax in 7.4 (which I agree with, you can't, never said you could), the same is true for the current system, so your argument that there's a difference between the two is wrong. You keep trying to compare different numbers and different systems because when you compare the GTN numbers directly where they're actually comparable, your point is repeatedly proven wrong.

You can't really compare this to a real life sales tax since it's not actually shown in the same way. In a real life store, you don't see prices on the shelf including the tax. They show the price the store is selling it for, and then the tax is added on when you check out. The "buyer's fee" in SWTOR doesn't work that way. It's applied beforehand such that the buyout price is the only thing the buyer ever sees, and that's true in both systems. As a result, when using existing market data to set a price, sellers have to include the tax because they can only see buyout prices too, which include the tax. It's not the same. Similarly, again, to make it clear again, the unit price in 7.4 is not the same as a buyout price in the current system, so you cannot compare them. They represent different things. If your example only works when you compare numbers that represent different things, your example is wrong.

You still seem to not understand the difference between a buyout price and a unit price. To clear this up for you: A buyout price, both in the current system and 7.4's system, is what the buyer sees when they make the purchase. In both systems, this price includes the tax. A unit price, in 7.4, is what the seller puts in on the listing screen and is what they receive when the sale goes through. This doesn't include the tax in 7.4. A buyout price of 3 billion in 7.4 has a unit price below 3 billion. So in that poster's example, having a buyout price of 3 billion in both systems gets the seller less credits in 7.4. That's a fact. It's just how the systems work, the tax rate is higher for a 3 billion credit buyout price in 7.4, and the buyout price includes the tax.

Except it does work, because I'm applying it where buyout prices are equivalent, and it works in all circumstances there. Your example falls apart when go to a buyout price that can be matched in both systems, so your point here applies to your own example.

But then the example only works for 3 billion. If you're only considering 3 billion, then yes, 7.4 gets you more credits, but that's not a matter of the tax not being applied, it's because the buyout price cap is effectively raised in 7.4 by 400+ million credits due to the change in what's being capped. Once you drop to lower prices where you can have an equivalent buyout price in both systems, your example falls apart.